The Hijab's Progression To Symbol Of Political Oppression

Mr. Bakhtavar is an attorney, foreign policy analyst, political commentator and author of "Iran: The Green Movement."

Baku, Azerbaijan, October 2006. (Oleg Nikishin/Bloomberg News)

In Islamic religious custom, the term “hijab” refers to traditional clothing worn by women, especially when in sight of grown men who are not members of their family. Most strictly, this applies to head scarves that rest upon the shoulder and may or may not cover part of a woman’s chest along with her hair. It can also speak of face coverings, and more liberally, of other peculiarly Muslim female garments. For our purposes here, we reference the most commonly understood form of hijab, which are head scarves, but the purpose of all such clothing is the same: Hijab is a culturally cherished means for Muslim women to protect their modesty and avoid inciting the lust of men who are not their husband.

Many predominantly Muslim countries observe the traditions of wearing hijab, especially in the Middle East; in that region, the ancient nation of Iran is no exception. Even before a majority of its population came to follow the Islamic faith, some form of head covering has been traditional for Iranian women as a matter of fashion for thousands of years, though it is the arrival of the Muslim tradition that elevated scarves to a religious obligation often enforced by culture. By the early 20th century, in fact, there was virtually no element of choice in the wearing of hijab; women who refused were ostracized and might even have cause to fear for their safety.

Watch On Forbes: This Young Muslim Street Fashion Entrepreneur Takes A Stand For Values

Tired of this immense social pressure on the female portion of the population, the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, issued a decree in the 1930s banning the wearing of hijab. Though he employed tough enforcement tactics to ensure that his edict was obeyed, his ultimate goal was to remove the obligation of women to wear the traditional scarves, as well as to update Iran’s overall dress code to a more progressive, Western mind-set.

The Shah’s actions instituted into Iranian culture by fiat the notion that hijab was not mandatory clothing for women, and with this job done, Reza Pahlavi’s successor to the throne—his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi—substantially relaxed his father’s prohibition. The new Shah removed all legal sanctions against hijab and made its wearing strictly voluntary. For the first time in a long time, Iranian women were truly free to decide whether they wanted to wear it or not.

This, however, like so many other examples of progressive Iranian cultural evolution, changed with the coming of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. When that event installed an absolute Muslim theocracy in power in Iran, new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini brought hijab back. At first he merely spoke favorably of the “duty” Muslim women had (in his opinion) to wear it, but over the course of several years he gradually made it mandatory that all Iranian females must have traditional Islamic coverings in public. In doing this, Khomeini turned hijab into something it had never been as a fashion statement, cultural requirement or even enforced taboo under the Shah. Now, hijab was a symbol of government oppression and tyranny.

Unfortunately, this is how the people of Iran are likely to see it today. The Iranian population is composed largely of young people under the age of 35, a very progressive, pro-Western demographic that rejects religious dictatorship and favors personal liberties. It is sad that the hijab should be entangled in a socio-political mess that will leave it a defiled representative of runaway government control. The people of Iran especially are the kinds to prefer that it be viewed as what it is: a venerable religious tradition, one which today’s Muslim women should be free to embrace or reject according to their personal preferences. Instead, they are imprisoned by it, forced to wear it whether they want to or not.

There has already been some resistance to this—tellingly enough, from young people. In competitive chess, Dorsa Derakshani, an 18-year-old girl and member of the Iranian National Chess Team, refused to play wearing the mandatory hijab headscarf; she was expelled from the team as a result. Also in chess, a high-ranking American player named Nazi Paikidze refused to participate in a championship match set to be held in Iran, because the host country insisted that, if she played, she must wear traditional hijab during the game. Paikidze spoke out about her decision to boycott the event after the fact, responding directly to critics who claimed that she did not understand Iranian cultural and religious practices. She pointed out that her most fervent supporters in her stance have been Iranian nationals, who struggle with the hijab requirements daily and—like her—do not wish to be forced to wear specific garments.

Defiance like this is to be encouraged, for without it there will never be a change—in Iran or anywhere. Perhaps, in a future time, we can look forward to the hijab returning to its status as a cherished and voluntary religious decision, not a compulsory symbol of the repressive regime under which the Iranian people currently labor.